The recent controversy comes from the Library of Congress’ (“LOC”) interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’), specifically Chapter 12 of Title 17 of the United States Code, which prohibits “circumvent[ion of] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted] work.” 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A). Without going into detail, the “locking” of a phone involves coding, which at least arguably involves the control of access to copyrighted code. More strange, every person I have spoken to about this matter has uttered a sound similar to “Hwah??” when they realize the rule barring unlocking cell phones comes from the LOC, not directly from a court or Congress. To explain, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) requires the Librarian of Congress to hold a rulemaking proceeding to determine categories of work exempt from the prohibition against circumventing electronic controls.

Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.

Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

In the literally hundreds and hundreds of posts about this fairly significant change in the law, I have yet to see anyone point to the actual language used by the LOC in its October 26, 2012 rulemaking to suddenly make cell phone unlocking illegal. As much fun as pontification and rehashed pontification may be, here is the moving part in the flesh (37 CFR 201(b)(3), or p. 65278, column 2, ¶3) – the LOC exempts:

Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable a wireless telephone handset originally acquired from the operator of a wireless telecommunications network or retailer no later than ninety days after the effective date of this exemption to connect to a different wireless telecommunications network, if the operator of the wireless communications network to which the handset is locked has failed to unlock it within a reasonable period of time following a request by the owner of the wireless telephone handset, and when circumvention is initiated by the owner, an individual consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of the computer program in such wireless telephone handset, solely in order to connect to a different wireless telecommunications network, and such access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

This language is so muddled it makes the Magna Carta read like a shopping list (“… Butter, milk, eggs, chocolate chips, and equal protection under law…”). It appears, at least, that the LOC as of October 26, 2012, made it legal until 90 days (January 26, 2012 or thereabouts) to unlock phones. After that, such activity became copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A).

Start your truck, we’re looking at driving through…

First, since this falls under Copyright law, and 17 U.S.C. 1201 lists at least some (but not all) defenses to Copyright infringement, should those defenses, including fair use, be available? Here’s a hint, look at 17 U.S.C. 1201(c)(1).. (“Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.”). Are carriers really going to sue people? Who has standing, the manufacturer of the phone? The new carrier? The original carrier? All three? Why would the manufacturer or new carrier ever sue?

Second, what does “a wireless telephone handset originally acquired from the operator of a wireless telecommunications network or retailer” mean? Assuming it means what it says, what if I give someone my brand new phone and they sell it back to me? What if my friend and I both swap identical phones? This seems like a pretty big hole. I pilot twin Droid Bionics (think “Razr Maxx with half the battery life and a user-swappable battery” – one for backup and development) on Verizon (not at the same time), both bought from third-party prior owners, not Verizon — can I unlock them? Maybe: the October 26, 2012 rulemaking, after defining “legacy phones” as “used (or perhaps unused) phones previously purchased or otherwise acquired by a consumer” continues, “[t]he Register concluded after a review of the statutory factors that an exemption to the prohibition on circumvention of mobile phone computer programs to permit users to unlock ‘legacy’ phones is both warranted and unlikely to harm the market for such programs.” Sounds simple, right?

To test this theory, I called Verizon after the loophole closed and told them I wanted to unlock the phone not currently being used on my account to put it on a prepaid network. I was told that they will not unlock their devices unless the owner is relocatingabroad. Have I satisfied the “if the operator of the wireless communications network…” language? Now that the loophole has closed, does it still matter? Since mine are “legacy phones,” did it ever?

Finally, the criminal section for Copyright violation is 17 USC §1204 and reads in relevant part that prison may be in the cards for “[a]ny person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain…” (Emphasis added) If I have an unused cell phone and I want to use it on a different network than the one that originally sold it, assuming without argument that my effort to unlock is “willful,” is it “for purposes of commercial advantage” (probably not) or “private financial gain” (does getting access to cheaper wireless qualify)?

So what we have here is an inconsistent and illogical rule, reversing at least 6 years of the opposite rule, with limited justification and basis, and huge, poorly defined loopholes, sewn together with the threat of civil persecution and criminal prosecution. Doesn’t it make more sense to just sign the petition?

About Centre

Centre’s Internet Law and New Media Practice covers a broad range of topics related to the law of the internet. While much of internet law involves the application of more traditional areas of law (such as copyright law and trademark law) to the internet, there are many pitfalls that attorneys without Internet law related experience may not know. This is why it is important to consider a firm with attorneys who have internet law experience.
What makes Centre’s Internet Law and New Media Practice ideal is that its attorneys not only have internet law experience, but also have complex commercial litigation experience and business law experience. As such, we can offer a comprehensive view of the legal landscape coupled with the expertise required in the ever-changing world of Internet law.